A broken promise by National before a Government is even formed

Here’s the National Party’s Minister of Conservation, in response to Green MP Kevin Hague’s question in Parliament a couple of months ago:

Kevin Hague: Does the Minister agree with the resource consent commissioners when they said “it is abundantly clear that large scale mining is poised to invade the entire Denniston Plateau coal reserves which if unchecked, will totally destroy the ecosystems which are present.”, and does she not believe it is essential that the access agreement that is being applied for is publicly notified?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: In relation to the public notification, I can advise that if the department intends to grant the Denniston concession application, then public submissions will be invited, and the public can be heard again should it reach that stage. (my emphasis)

But yesterday, Kate Wilkinson told Forest & Bird the Government will break its promise to give New Zealanders a say, and that a decision on an open-cast coal mine on Denniston Conservation land can go ahead without public consultation.

There’s a chocolate fish for anyone who can authenticate any other instance of the lead Party in a potential Government breaking a pre-election promise before the new Government is even formed.

Thanks @toad, I’ve flicked her a quick request on twitter. Today’s Herald story continues to show the Minister appearing to duck apart from apparently putting forth a disagreement about matters, but the Herald still quotes Forest & Bird spokespeople about the letter instead of showing any evidence that they’ve actually seen the thing.

Generally I tend to trust F&B and I expect they’re on to something, but I still prefer to make up my mind on my own terms rather than jump on someone else’s bandwagon.

It doesn’t bother me Mike, because Forest & Bird would be extremely silly to spin the Minister’s letter as saying something it did not. If that were the case, the Minister would almost certainly have released the letter herself by now to refute Forest and Bird’s claims. Instead, she seems to have gone to ground.

But if it concerns you, why don’t you contact Nicola Vallance who issued the F&B media release yourself and ask if she will make the full text of the Minister’s letter public. Nicola’s contact details are on this page.

Phil, what I said wasn’t that hard to understand. I’m not “claiming” it’s false or true and I’m not spinning for the government, whatever that means. I’d just like some more objective context than a single press release that’s not from the original source of the statement, but which so far has framed everything I’ve seen about whatever it is that Kate Wilkinson said.

If Forest and Bird would publish the letter she sent them and the clear details of what they asked her (maybe they already have?), then that’d be great!

Has anyone besides Forest & Bird been able to see the actual letter from Kate Wilkinson, and documentation of whatever questions Forest and Bird asked her?

So far all I’ve seen are Forest and Bird claims that she’s “lied” and “reneged on her promise”, and everything I’ve seen in the media is derived from claims in the Forest and Bird press release. As sceptical as I tend to be about the government’s general attitude in this area, I’d like to see the fuller context of what she wrote.

I think it is you who are being misleading, and mischievous. Frog has carefully explained that the access permit process is totally separate from the resource consent process (the outcome of which is being appealed in any case), and that different considerations apply to each.

I find it hard to accept that you do not understand that, and suspect you are deliberately attempting to misdirect the discussion (i.e. trolling).

photonz1, the answer to your first question is “No”. I think you might be thinking of Stockton, which had similar ecology before coal mining destroyed it.

Re your second question, there were public submissions on the resource consent process, and some of the submitters including Forest & Bird are appealing the resource consent decision to the Environment Court.

The resource consent Commissioners Kevin quoted are the same ones who granted the resource consents. They decided that economic considerations tipped the balance in favour of granting the consents, despite their severe reservations about the impact on the ecology of the area. However, the issue of whether the Department of Conservation issues an access permit is a separate process involving different considerations, and DoC is not required to take those economic considerations into account in making its decision on the access permit.

I don’t think National is all powerful and the left will just be bullied into submission.

The Natz might appear to ooze confidence but not much has changed in terms of resistance. Some on the left might be feeling a little demoralized by recent events when by all accounts, National should have lost, but it is just one battle in the war to save our environment.

You can sign the petition to save the Denniston Plateau from open cast coal mining here.